Anti-Semitic Strategy at the UN

At first glance, the recent G-77 gathering seemed like a “Saturday Night Live” parody of the UN’ s largest bloc. The new chairman, with rehearsed political correctness, to smiles and applause, called on “all states” (except his) to end the “epidemic” of terrorism and “work with us to put an end to this scourge.”

The speaker was Palestinian Authority President and PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas— infamous inciter and propagator of violence and terror against the sovereign State of Israel, and bankroller of Palestinian terrorism to the tune of more than US $138 million to terrorist prisoners and ex-convicts in 2018 alone.

Abbas’s chairmanship, which violates G-77 principles and the UN Charter, is the latest blight on the UN’s eroded legitimacy and credibility. Created to safeguard world peace, security, human rights, and the sovereign equality of states by peaceful dispute resolution, the UN has been hijacked by an anti-Semitic, terror-tainted political agenda—discrediting itself by violating its own charter.

How did this sorry state of affairs develop? And what can be done by those states who are committed to the UN’s ethical, democratic founding principles?

Anti-Semitism at the UN began not randomly, but as a deliberate strategy. Some historians believe it started after Israel won the Six-Day War in June 1967, damaging Russian prestige at home and abroad. The Soviets, enraged by Israel’s defeat of its proxies Egypt and Syria, retaliated, aiming its Cold War weapons of propaganda and disinformation against the Jewish State—by a state-sponsored vilification campaign against Israel and Jews, and then at the UN, where it forged a political alliance with Arab and Third World states. Starting in 1969, the General Assembly produced multiple resolutions affirming the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.”

Russia uses language for totalitarian social control, said historian Joel Fishman. Following the Six-Day War, the selected vocabulary was published in the party newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda in October 1967: “Zionism is dedicated to genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation ...attributes of fascists.” In 1975, the Soviet- Arab bloc passed GA Resolution 3379, “Zionism is Racism."

But historian Joel Fishman said Resolution 3379 was brewing in 1964—before the Six-Day War. In March of that year, the U.S.proposed that the UN recognize anti-Semitism as a form of racism along with apartheid and Nazism. The Soviets stonewalled, because they were, after all, anti-Semites who persecuted Soviet Jews, Fishman said. They threatened the United States to drop the proposal or face a Russian amendment condemning Zionism and Nazism—thus equating the two.

In October 1965, the US pushed an amendment to the final draft condemning anti-Semitism, but the Soviets insisted on adding“Zionism” to the forms of racism to condemn. After a bitter debate, a compromise struck all references to racism except apartheid. Thus, the Soviets succeeded in excluding anti-Semitism as racist without leaving behind a voting record—which could augur future charges against its own state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

The 1965 debates critically impacted evolving world opinion and international law on Israel and Zionism. “From then on, it was almost impossible to raise anti-Semitism as a human rights issue,” Fishman said. Thus Soviet political propaganda became a bridge to today’s global outbreak.

For the Soviets, the Cold War never really ended. Recent revelations of their digital disinformation and propaganda are well-publicized.

But neither has the UN been a passive instrument of Soviet manipulation. Israeli Major General (res.) Yaakov Amidror recalled how UN Secretary General U Thant endorsed President Nasser’s request to withdraw UN forces from the Sinai. Nasser replaced them with Egyptian military divisions, helping to spark the Six-Day War. And that’s just one example of UN complicity against Israel.

Israel’s concerted relationship-building with individual nations, and delegations of visiting UN ambassadors to see and experience the “real” Israel firsthand, are part of the solution to return to the UN Charter principle of friendly relations between nations. Likewise, while keeping an eye on Russia, Western democracies should continue to strengthen democratic blocs of nations to defend against the real “scourge.”

At all costs, the truth must be published. What does Israel or the US gain from “dialogue” in a tilted UN that could be better served by bilateral or Western-bloc diplomacy?